Culberson Rep

<b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Culberson

=2z<div class="comments_datetime_new border_none relative v05" data-beacon="{" p="p" mnid="mnid" entrybyline="entrybyline">Posted: 06/04/2013 12:37 pm EDT  |  Updated: 06/05/2013 11:02 am EDT</div><div class="entry_content"><div class="entry_body_text"><div class="float_left"><div class="articleBody" itemprop="articleBody">WASHINGTON -- House Republicans are scheduled to vote on two separate budget bills this week, each of which would reject funding for the poverty activism group ACORN, despite the fact that ACORN disbanded three years ago.ACORN, also known as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, came under heavy fire in the fall of 2009 after conservative videographer James O'Keefe released a set of selectively edited videos that appeared to show its employees offering advice on tax avoidance related to prostitution and child smuggling. Independent investigations by the California attorney general, the Massachusetts attorney general and the Brooklyn, N.Y., district attorney would later clear ACORN of criminal wrongdoing, and an investigation by the Government Accountability Office would clear ACORN of charges that it mishandled federal funds.But in the fall of 2009, Congress banned federal funding for ACORN using broad language that applied to "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/whoops-anti-acorn-bill-ro_n_294949.html" target="hplink">any organization</a>" that had been charged with breaking federal or state election laws, lobbying disclosure laws or campaign finance laws or with filing fraudulent paperwork with any federal or state agency. The funding ban also extended to any employees, contractors or others affiliated with any group so charged.Struggling with the bad publicity and loss of federal funds, ACORN dissolved in early 2010. Just to be sure, however, Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) included this language in <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr2216rh/pdf/BILLS-113hr2216rh.pdf" target="hplink">a government funding bill</a> introduced on May 28 of this year: "None of the funds made available in this Act may be distributed to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) or its subsidiaries or successors."Section 545 of <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr2217rh/pdf/BILLS-113hr2217rh.pdf" target="hplink">a bill put forward the next day</a> by Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) delves still deeper into faux certainty, extending the funding ban to "any prior appropriations Act."In fact, ACORN has no subsidiaries, because it has not existed for three years. Neither bill defines "successors," but the broad language of <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3571/text" target="hplink">the original 2009 funding ban</a>left little room for leeway, extending to "Any State chapter of ACORN registered with the Secretary of State's office in that State," "any organization that shares directors, employees, or independent contractors with ACORN," and any organization that "employs" someone "indicted" for violations that ACORN was initially charged with."Is this network war?]Is it too late to defund Saddam Hussein?" mocked Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.).Jennifer Hing, a spokeswoman for House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), defended the passages as routine language that House Republicans always include. "These provisions are typically carried every year in appropriations bills," Hing said.</div></div></div></div>

Critics in the House and elsewhere have said the modeling has been a closed-door process, with insufficient input from the American public, and are trying to prevent the agency from enacting any regulations that account for the social cost of carbon.

An amendment introduced by Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) would bar the EPA from factoring the social cost of carbon into regulations unless a federal law is enacted specifically to authorize such consideration, <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/313057-social-cost-of-carbon-battle-hits-house-floor" target="_hplink" style=" text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 136, 195) !important; outline: 0px; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible; cursor: pointer; text-indent: 0px !important;">according to The Hill</a>. Another amendment, introduced by Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) as part of the "Energy Consumers Relief Act," would require the agency to promulgate a separate regulation to enable use of the metric.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who's worked with Culberson on his amendment, is also authoring <a href="http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Bill.pdf" target="_hplink" style=" text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 136, 195) !important; outline: 0px; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible; cursor: pointer; text-indent: 0px !important;">a stand-alone bill</a> with Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) that would scrutinize the process by which the social cost of carbon has been calculated, the role of public and congressional input, and how the social cost of carbon could affect future executive branch actions.

Rep. John Culberson (R-TX-07): This week the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided that the air we exhale, carbon dioxide, is toxic and poses a danger to our well-being…. While this blatant power grab is disappointing, the truly alarming part is that the scientific evidence the EPA used to support its conclusion comes directly from United Nations (U.N.) climate data – the same data that were recently found to have been deliberately manipulated to support the global warming movement. When EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced the proposed endangerment finding in April, she readily admitted that the agency “relied heavily upon the major findings and conclusions from recent assessments of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” Emails recently made public offer definitive proof of a collective effort among some U.N. scientists to misrepresent climate data in order to foist their political agenda onto the public.

[<a href="http://culberson.house.gov/hold-your-breath-texas/">source</a>]

<h1 class="title-news">===

</h1>

<h1 class="title-news">House Republicans To Defund ACORN Again, Even Though It Still Does Not Exist</h1>

Posted: 06/04/2013 12:37 pm EDT  |  Updated: 06/05/2013 11:02 am EDT

</div>

WASHINGTON -- House Republicans are scheduled to vote on two separate budget bills this week, each of which would reject funding for the poverty activism group ACORN, despite the fact that ACORN disbanded three years ago.

ACORN, also known as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, came under heavy fire in the fall of 2009 after conservative videographer James O'Keefe released a set of selectively edited videos that appeared to show its employees offering advice on tax avoidance related to prostitution and child smuggling. Independent investigations by the California attorney general, the Massachusetts attorney general and the Brooklyn, N.Y., district attorney would later clear ACORN of criminal wrongdoing, and an investigation by the Government Accountability Office would clear ACORN of charges that it mishandled federal funds.

But in the fall of 2009, Congress banned federal funding for ACORN using broad language that applied to "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/whoops-anti-acorn-bill-ro_n_294949.html" target="_hplink">any organization</a>" that had been charged with breaking federal or state election laws, lobbying disclosure laws or campaign finance laws or with filing fraudulent paperwork with any federal or state agency. The funding ban also extended to any employees, contractors or others affiliated with any group so charged.

Struggling with the bad publicity and loss of federal funds, ACORN dissolved in early 2010. Just to be sure, however, Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) included this language in <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr2216rh/pdf/BILLS-113hr2216rh.pdf" target="_hplink">a government funding bill</a> introduced on May 28 of this year: "None of the funds made available in this Act may be distributed to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) or its subsidiaries or successors."

Section 545 of <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr2217rh/pdf/BILLS-113hr2217rh.pdf" target="_hplink">a bill put forward the next day</a> by Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) delves still deeper into faux certainty, extending the funding ban to "any prior appropriations Act."

In fact, ACORN has no subsidiaries, because it has not existed for three years. Neither bill defines "successors," but the broad language of <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3571/text" target="_hplink">the original 2009 funding ban</a> left little room for leeway, extending to "Any State chapter of ACORN registered with the Secretary of State's office in that State," "any organization that shares directors, employees, or independent contractors with ACORN," and any organization that "employs" someone "indicted" for violations that ACORN was initially charged with.

"Is it too late to defund Saddam Hussein?" mocked Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.).

Jennifer Hing, a spokeswoman for House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), defended the passages as routine language that House Republicans always include. "These provisions are typically carried every year in appropriations bills," Hing said.

Indeed, like a game of legislative Mad Libs, the House GOP routinely inserts a similar provision in appropriations bills it approves. In March, the House signed off on a short-term "continuing resolution" budget with language <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/acorn-gop-budget-bill_n_2810345.html" target="_hplink">identical to Culberson's</a>.

The decision of whether to cover prior legislation in the ACORN funding ban is left to individual Appropriations subcommittees, according to Hing. The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, chaired by Carter, traditionally includes the retroactive ban. The Culberson and Carter bills are both set for a vote this week.

<table align="middle" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5" width="100%"><tbody><tr align="center"><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc0000"><img src="/41a540a9-1522-51f6-87df-b4f9f28eefb8.gif"/> John Culberson on Corporations <img src="/1ecacc0f-8b87-5c72-8573-605f499e9dd2.gif"/></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Click here for 9 full quotes on Corporations OR background on Corporations.

<ul>

<li>Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. (Jul 2009)</li>

<li>Voted YES on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization. (Jul 2009)</li>

<li>Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)</li>

<li>Voted YES on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks. (Jun 2004)</li>

<li>Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)</li>

<li>Rated 93% by the <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Note-COC.asp">US COC</a>, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003)</li>

<li>Repeal ObamaCare reporting requirements for small business. (Jan 2011)</li>

<li>Expand lending caps for credit unions to small business. (Apr 2011)</li>

<li>Rated 0% by <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Note-UFCH.asp">UFCW</a>, indicating a pro-management voting record. (May 2012)</li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table align="middle" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5" width="100%"><tbody><tr align="center"><td align="center" bgcolor="#000099"><img src="/a2a67be1-1671-512f-9411-1e32ec6d5256.gif"/> John Culberson on Crime <img src="/2f4a325b-4e1c-597e-8bb0-4f0bbfe6fb6d.gif"/></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Click here for 2 full quotes on Crime OR background on Crime.

<ul>

<li>Voted NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)</li>

<li>Voted NO on expanding services for offenders' re-entry into society. (Nov 2007)</li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table align="middle" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5" width="100%"><tbody><tr align="center"><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc0000"><img src="/06dcbc92-c7ed-5962-9f52-d3ee0e47981a.gif"/> John Culberson on Drugs <img src="/0237997b-6796-5d7b-8f30-b05c983a4657.gif"/></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Click here for 4 full quotes on Drugs OR background on Drugs.

<ul>

<li>Voted NO on more funding for Mexico to fight drugs. (Jun 2008)</li>

<li>Voted YES on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)</li>

<li>War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights . (Dec 2000)</li>

<li>Rated -20 by <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Note-NORML.asp">NORML</a>, indicating a "hard-on-drugs" stance. (Dec 2006)</li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table align="middle" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5" width="100%"><tbody><tr align="center"><td colspan="2" align="center" bgcolor="#000099" valign="top"><img src="/d6f14c8f-ec5b-5bcc-a872-2480a9fd6631.gif"/> John Culberson on Education <img src="/8a211c73-3af5-506f-966e-87b93fc652df.gif"/></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Click here for 10 full quotes on Education OR background on Education.

<ul>

<li>Voted YES on reauthorizing the DC opportunity scholarship program. (Mar 2011)</li>

<li>Voted NO on $40B for green public schools. (May 2009)</li>

<li>Voted NO on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects. (Nov 2007)</li>

<li>Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)</li>

<li>Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)</li>

<li>Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)</li>

<li>Voted YES on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)</li>

<li>Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)</li>

<li>Supports requiring schools to allow prayer. (Jan 2001)</li>

<li>Rated 33% by the <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Note-NEA.asp">NEA</a>, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)</li>

</ul>

</td><td style=" vertical-align: top; padding: 0 0 0 100px;">

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table align="middle" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5" width="100%"><tbody><tr align="center"><td align="center" bgcolor="#cc0000"><img src="/f25303b3-4ca2-5210-8fbd-b823e381a4c8.gif"/> John Culberson on Energy & Oil <img src="/db018495-2c1a-510a-a84d-ffe6d44b1469.gif"/></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Click here for 22 full quotes on Energy & Oil OR background on Energy & Oil.

<ul>

<li>Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. (May 2011)</li>

<li>Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)</li>

<li>Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)</li>

<li>Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008)</li>

<li>Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)</li>

<li>Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)</li>

<li>Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)</li>

<li>Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)</li>

<li>Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)</li>

<li>Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)</li>

<li>Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)</li>

<li>Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)</li>

<li>Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)</li>

<li>Voted YES on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)</li>

<li>Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)</li>

<li>Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)</li>

<li>Rated 0% by the <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Note-CAF.asp">CAF</a>, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)</li>

<li>Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009)</li>

<li>Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Note-AFP.asp">AFP</a>. (Nov 2010)</li>

<li>Cap-and-trade has no impact on global temperatures. (Jul 2010)</li>

<li>Explore proven energy reserves & keep energy prices low. (Jul 2010)</li>

<li>Drill the Outer Continental Shelf; & license new nuke plants. (Mar 2011)</li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table align="middle" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5" width="100%"><tbody><tr align="center"><td align="center" bgcolor="#000099"><img src="/7530962e-2038-5df3-b3c4-9cdfc84cbf4e.gif"/> John Culberson on Environment <img src="/c303784e-5b71-53c2-8c17-c32842466759.gif"/></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Click here for 9 full quotes on Environment OR background on Environment.

<ul>

<li>Voted NO on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program. (Jul 2009)</li>

<li>Voted NO on protecting free-roaming horses and burros. (Jul 2009)</li>

<li>Voted NO on environmental education grants for outdoor experiences. (Sep 2008)</li>

<li>Voted NO on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008)</li>

<li>Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)</li>

<li>Voted NO on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)</li>

<li>Voted YES on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)</li>

<li>Rated 5% by the <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Note-LCV.asp">LCV</a>, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)</li>

<li>Rated 0% by <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Note-HSLH.asp">HSLF</a>, indicating an anti-animal welfare voting record. (Jan 2012)</li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</center>

</div>

<div>

</div></div></div>